Featured Quote:"A believer may pass through much affliction, and yet secure very little blessing from it all. Abiding in Christ is the secret of securing all that the Father meant the chastisement to bring us." - Andrew Murray

How did the 1st Century Church worship and fellowship-was it in buildings that they purposefully had made, or was it house to house? I know occassionally they met or gathered in Solomons porch/temple, when the whole Church came together. But on a consistent basis, how did they meet-to me, it seems it was from "house to house" which shows the mobility-which is what a body or living organism does, it moves. Your thoughts please. :-)

I have ponder that question many times, it does state that they did meet house to house, but then they also could have meet in buildings regularly as well.

I think we need to tread on thin ice here! I know how this thread can go down hill fast. This has been a hot topic many of times. I for one am not opposed of a healthy discussion. I may be a bit gun shy on this only because many are very passionate about this topic. So it was shoot first and ask questions later!! :-P I may be reading to far into this, but hopefully it won't go bad!

I for one am in a quandary on this subject. I have had strong opinion on one side of the fence, but the past year I feel that I have taken a different stance in my view...I would say the verdict is still out right now for me! :-)

reformer wrote:I have ponder that question many times, it does state that they did meet house to house, but then they also could have meet in buildings regularly as well.

I think we need to tread on thin ice here! I know how this thread can go down hill fast. This has been a hot topic many of times. I for one am not opposed of a healthy discussion. I may be a bit gun shy on this only because many are very passionate about this topic. So it was shoot first and ask questions later!! :-P I may be reading to far into this, but hopefully it won't go bad!

I for one am in a quandary on this subject. I have had strong opinion on one side of the fence, but the past year I feel that I have taken a different stance in my view...I would say the verdict is still out right now for me! :-)

May the Lord bless you

Thanks for responding. If I may ask-what kind/style of Church do you attend now-in a building, or "house church"?

I myself, lean more to the house to house, or home church-because of scriptures like these:

Rom 16:5 Likewise greet [b]the church that is in their house[/b].

1Cor 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with [b]the church that is in their house[/b].

Col 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and [b]the church which is in his house[/b].

1Tim 3:5 - (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Phm 1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and [b]to the church in thy house[/b]

Though, currently, I somewhat fellowship, with a local assembly in a building.

I also think about scriptures like these:

Acts7:48 Howbeit the most High [b]dwelleth notin temples made with hands[/b]; as saith the prophet, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? 50 Hath not my hand made all these things?

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, [b]dwelleth not in temples made with hands[/b]; 25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

House to house or building? Yes! In reality, there is no real difference between the two. Homes are buildings too! Cosmetically, there are general differences of course. I think it is evident that the early church used whatever was most prudent at any given time. They met house to house, in the temple, along riversides, in schools, in "upper rooms." Permanent chapel like structures though, don't appear in the archeological record until about the time of Constantine. That's not to say that wealthier people didn't remodel their homes to serve in a similar fashion though.

If I may ask-what kind/style of Church do you attend now-in a building, or "house church"?

My wife and I are currently seeking a fellowship, we have been attending a church(building) for a couple of months. We haven't yet placed membership, we are not sure yet. I still have some wrinkles in my past that I have been hoping the Lord will iron out! We right now have been through a lot when we decided we should leave. there is to much to say on the subject so I will stop there. But, needless to say, it was more finding a church that is in line with a lot of the content on SI.

Yes you do bring up many references for the claim of house fellowships. I believe scripture has made that clear about house fellowships. I think there is some danger in having house fellowships with respect on who is going to lead it, who will govern it? Who will teach? When I think of "buildings" they are more governed by other men, by organizations, like SBC or AOG. Not that those are error proof, but there is a high level of accountability. What I am saying plainly, is accountability should be held to a high degree, I think you can leave yourself open to error, if there is two buddies that got together and started a fellowship in the house.

For me I would not right now feel comfortable with a home fellowship. But that is partially because we, as American Christian have learned one and only way. But one day will come, that house fellowships will be the only way we can have "church".

Permanent chapel like structures though, don't appear in the archeological record until about the time of Constantine. That's not to say that wealthier people didn't remodel their homes to serve in a similar fashion though.

I wonder if the introduction of the Edict of Toleration had something to do with that? The logic being that it would not have been practical to have a dedicated "place of worship" before then, due to the varying degrees of opposition against the church.

Having said that, as a "house-churcher" who still attends a denominational service on the occasional Sunday, I don't look at the common "building based" worship service as being "church". After all, dinguishing between true and false converts is incredibly difficult, thereby making it possible that becoming a "member" will involve becoming "unequally yoked with unbelievers".

Home fellowships, on the other hand, require a high level of intimacy to function, and that tends to create an environment where lives are exposed, subtle character changes can be challenged, and people feel free to "confess (their) faults, one to another, that (they) might pray for one another and be healed".

And then there is the issue of "eldership" (I won't elaborate right now).

I guess my point is to say that I don't see in Scripture anything against having a dedicated "place of worship", but I would place much more emphasis on the "home based fellowship", and even beyond that, onto a worship that is totally "without walls", being lived out in daily life, wherever that might be.

I guess my point is to say that I don't see in Scripture anything against having a dedicated "place of worship", but I would place much more emphasis on the "home based fellowship", and even beyond that, onto a worship that is totally "without walls", being lived out in daily life, wherever that might be.

For a practical consideration also, but, when we meet in chapel style structures, to some degree we make it impractical for people who work unusual hours to have any real fellowship with the rest of the church. The house church model makes things much more simpler by far.

I think there is some danger in having house fellowships with respect on who is going to lead it, who will govern it? Who will teach?

Biblically speaking, leadership is much more of a function than "position" or office. For when we usually think of leadership, we think of a person heading a program who tells people to do such and such so as to cause the show to go on.

Biblical leadership is best seen in Hebrews 13:7 & 17:

Heb 13:7 Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith... 17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

Leadership here is not in the traditional way that we have known it in the church. Rather, one is a leader because they speak and live the word of God, and those who hear them obey the preached word, and imitate the conduct of these men. "Institutional" Christianity knows little to nothing of this.

In fact, I was taught in Bible college that you are to distance yourself from your sheep so that they don't see the errors in your life and thus lose respect for your "authority." Biblical authority and leadership is in how one lives one's life so as to cause others to follow in the same steps. It is not in the running of programs and beating people into "submission."

KingJimmy wrote:For a practical consideration also, but, when we meet in chapel style structures, to some degree we make it impractical for people who work unusual hours to have any real fellowship with the rest of the church. The house church model makes things much more simpler by far.

Bingo. Spontaneous obedience to the exhortation to "not forsaken meeting together" vs enforced attendance to a fixed location. This is the true issue to be raised. The litmus test is where the "place of worship" [b]rules[/b] us, or [b]serves[/b] us.

KingJimmy wrote:Biblically speaking, leadership is much more of a function than "position" or office. For when we usually think of leadership, we think of a person heading a program who tells people to do such and such so as to cause the show to go on. ...one is a leader because they speak and live the word of God, and those who hear them obey the preached word, and imitate the conduct of these men. "Institutional" Christianity knows little to nothing of this.

I remember hearing a talk given by E James Wilder, where he compared ordaining an elder with building a rope swing (I know, sounds a little weird, but bear with me;-)):

You move into a house, and look out the back yard, and notice a big old tree, with branches the size of your torso. Its leaves and fruit indicate abundant health, and a thought crosses your mind, "It would be almost criminal not to put up a rope swing here." After all, it would be safe, your children would enjoy it, and it wouldn't require a lot of effort to put it up. Essentially, the tree demonstrates a trustworthiness that invites you to trust your children's safety with it.

Change the story a little, and now we have an unwritten rule that says that all houses must have a rope swing. Now, we look out our backyard trying to figure out which tree is least likely to fall over. Where before, there was overwhelming qualification for the task, now we are assessing which qualifications to overlook.

Likewise, we tend to approach our church life with the expectation that there [b]must[/b] be an elder/pastor/deacon/etc or it isn't a "real church". The result is, we seek to minimise what to overlook in Paul's words to Timothy and Titus.

However, if instead we focus on "sumbit(ting ourselves), one to another", we will find ourselves recognising the elders and deacons, the five fold, etc as God sends them. Not only that, now rather than placing them on a pedistal and allowing them to control us, they become members of our community who serve alongside us, in their leadership roles. We follow them out of the respect they have earned from us and they lead us out of a loving concern for our souls.

Again, I am not trying to say that every minister is the kind of controlling hireling decribed above. In fact I know that the opposite is true.

Quote:

In fact, I was taught in Bible college that you are to distance yourself from your sheep so that they don't see the errors in your life and thus lose respect for your "authority."

Ahh... memories of the man who warning me against being transparent amongst the brethren, justified that they might use it against me.

Quote:

Biblical authority and leadership is in how one lives one's life so as to cause others to follow in the same steps. It is not in the running of programs and beating people into "submission."